Adolescent-relationship prosecutions occupy an uneasy corner of the POCSO Act: consent below eighteen is legally immaterial, yet at the bail stage courts increasingly examine the reality of the relationship and — critically — the dates. In S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9654/2026, decided on 24 September 2026, Justice Sanjeet Purohit of the Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a 20-year-old accused after finding that the relationship was prima facie consensual and that the physical relationship said to have caused the complainant’s pregnancy occurred after she attained majority. The order is a study in how timelines decide these cases.
The prosecution case and the timeline
The FIR, registered in May 2026, alleged offences under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act: a relationship beginning in January 2025 with a girl born on 2 September 2007, said to have been founded on a false promise of marriage, and discovered when her pregnancy came to light. The accused, aged 20, had been in custody since 29 May 2026; investigation was complete and the charge-sheet filed. Laid out on a calendar, the allegations straddled the complainant’s eighteenth birthday — she attained majority on 2 September 2025, the relationship allegedly ran from January 2025, and the last meeting was on 14 February 2026.
What the court held
Justice Sanjeet Purohit granted bail on two prima facie findings: the relationship appeared “consensual in nature”, and the physical relationship that allegedly resulted in the pregnancy “occurred after she had attained the age of majority.” With the investigation complete, a young first-time accused, and the operative allegations post-dating majority, continued custody pending a long trial was not justified. Bail followed on a ₹50,000 personal bond with two sureties of ₹25,000 each and the usual conditions against tampering and reoffending.
A bail order decides custody, not guilt. The aggravated-assault charges under Sections 5(l) and 6 POCSO — which concern repeated assaults on a child — remain for trial, where the timeline, the medical evidence and the complainant’s testimony will be tested in full.
How timelines operate in POCSO bail matters
Date of birth is evidence, not assumption
Age is proved under Section 94 of the JJ Act hierarchy — school records, birth certificates, and only lastly ossification. At the bail stage the pleaded date of birth frames the analysis; at trial it must be strictly proved.
Straddle cases turn on specifics
Where a relationship spans the eighteenth birthday, courts parse which acts are alleged before and after majority. Post-majority conduct falls outside POCSO, leaving consent and Section 69 BNS questions in play.
Stage of the case matters
A filed charge-sheet removes the investigation-protection rationale for custody. Bail then weighs the accused’s age, antecedents and the trial horizon.
The wider adolescent-relationship debate
Courts across the country — including the Delhi High Court — have repeatedly flagged the tension between POCSO’s bright-line age rule and prosecutions arising from adolescent relationships, particularly where the complaint is lodged by family or triggered by pregnancy rather than by the young woman herself. The emerging bail-stage approach, visible in this order, is pragmatic: the statutory rule is respected for trial, while custody decisions account for the relationship’s character, the parties’ ages and proximity in age, and the precise chronology. Defence preparation in such cases is correspondingly forensic — assembling the documentary timeline (date of birth records, the FIR’s own dates, medical estimation of gestation) often does more work than rhetoric about consent.
Takeaways: obtain and verify the age record early; map every alleged act against the majority date; and where investigation is complete, press the custody-purpose question squarely. For the prosecution, opposition must engage the same calendar with evidence, not indignation.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. POCSO matters are highly sensitive and fact-specific, and outcomes depend on the evidence in each case.
Frequently Asked Questions
Consent is irrelevant under POCSO — why did it matter here?
It matters at the bail stage, not to guilt. Where the material suggests a genuine relationship rather than exploitation, courts weigh that reality when deciding custody pending trial, especially for young accused with completed investigations. Conviction-stage questions remain untouched by a bail order.
What role did the complainant’s date of birth play?
A central one. She was born on 2 September 2007 and attained majority on 2 September 2025. The FIR, lodged in May 2026 after her pregnancy was discovered, alleged a relationship from January 2025; the last meeting was in February 2026. The court noted that the physical relationship which allegedly resulted in pregnancy occurred after she had attained majority — materially weakening the custodial case.
Did the false-promise-of-marriage allegation not bar bail?
The allegation — that relations were established on a false promise of marriage — raises a triable offence under Section 69 BNS territory, but at the bail stage the court assessed it prima facie alongside the consensual character of the relationship and the completed investigation, and found custody unnecessary.
What conditions accompanied the bail?
A personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of ₹25,000 each, together with standard conditions: no tampering with evidence, no fresh offence, and regular attendance at trial.